P. v.
Barrientos
Filed 6/4/13
P. v. Barrientos CA3
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
OSCAR ALEXANDER BARRIENTOS,
Defendant
and Appellant.
C069574
(Super.
Ct. No. CRF091248)
Appointed counsel for defendant
Oscar Alexander Barrientos asked this court to review the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable
error, we affirm the judgment.
In October 2008, Maria Cerna, her boyfriend, Hugo Enrique
Garcia (Hugo), and her children lived in West Sacramento. Cerna and Hugo worked during the day, and the
children were in school.
On October 23, 2008, as Cerna
was leaving for work, an unfamiliar teenage girl knocked on the door and asked
for Cerna’s daughter. After Cerna said
her daughter was not home, the girl walked to a car, which Cerna had seen
before parked nearby, and got into the driver’s seat; a young, slender Hispanic
male (later identified by Cerna as defendant) was in the passenger seat.
As Cerna left for work, leaving the
house empty, she forgot to close the bathroom window. Looking back, she saw that the car with the
two young people inside was still parked near her house.
Hugo later called Cerna at work to
tell her someone had burgled their home.
The screens had been removed from the bathroom and bedroom windows, and
both windows were open. A small plastic
chair was under the bathroom window. The
missing items, which included a television, car speakers, stereo and amplifier,
DVD player, and jewelry, were worth over $950.
None was recovered.
While translating Cerna’s statement
to the police, her daughter recognized Cerna’s description of the teenage girl
as her friend’s 17-year-old sister Alena.
Analysis of latent prints on the
home’s open windows turned up a match to defendant’s prints.
Interviewed by the police, defendant
denied involvement in the burglary
and claimed he had never been in West Sacramento. He admitted, however, that his girlfriend was
Antoinette Advincula, Alena’s sister.
The sisters lived in West Sacramento on the same block as Cerna; while
investigating an unrelated incident involving Alena, the police found defendant
at the sisters’ home.
Defendant was charged by information
with residential burglary and grand theft.
(Pen. Code, §§ 459, 484,
subd. (a)/487, subd. (a).)
The trial court granted defendant
formal probation for four years with 180 days in county jail and awarded him
three actual days of presentence credit.
The court imposed a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and
a suspended $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $60 court facilities fee
(Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)), and a $60 court security fee
(§ 1465.8). The court also ordered
defendant to pay $4,696 in restitution to Cerna.
Appointed counsel filed an
of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised by counsel
of the right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no
communication from defendant. Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
HOCH , J.
We concur:
HULL , Acting P. J.
MAURO , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
